Thompson v. Regions Security Services, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 20-62152-CIV-DIMITROULEAS DAVID THOMPSON, Magistrate Judge Birch Plaintiff, vs. REGIONS SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant. ____________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR COSTS AND FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND REASONABLE EXPENSES OF LITIGATION THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff David Thompson (“Plaintiff” or “Thompson”)’s Motion for Costs [DE 67] and Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Reasonable Expenses of Litigation [DE 73] (collectively, the “Motions”); United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch’s October 11, 2024 Report & Recommendation (the “Report”) [DE 78]; Defendant Regions Security Services, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Regions”)’s Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 79]; and Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Objection [DE 80]. The Court has carefully considered these filings, the entire docket, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Defendant’s Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 79]. Having carefully considered the Defendant’s Objections, the Court overrules the Objections. Judge Birch did not err in ruling that Thompson is a prevailing party in this action. This action was resolved in Plaintiff’s favor. The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s Notice of Acceptance of Defendant’s Offer of Judgment, found it to be a fair and reasonable compromise of Plaintiff’s FLSA claim, and accordingly entered a Final Judgment in favor of Thompson and against Regions. See [DE’s 61, 61-1, 62]. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusion that the pending appeal does not deprive Thompson of prevailing party status. See [DE 125]. Furthermore, the Court rejects Defendant’s arguments that Judge Birch erred in her findings and recommendations as to the appropriateness of and the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded to Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions regarding the recommended attorney’s fees award to Plaintiff as the prevailing party in this case. Finally, the Court agrees with Judge Birch’s recommendation that under the FLSA Plaintiff is entitled to $858.75 in non- taxable costs as his part of the mediation fee.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 78] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Defendant’s Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 79] are OVERRULED; 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Costs [DE 67] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is hereby awarded $2,820 in taxable costs.

4. Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Reasonable Expenses of Litigation [DE 73] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is hereby awarded $94,627.50 in attorneys’ fees and $858.75 in non-taxable costs.

5. Using the above amounts, Plaintiff’s total award for fees and costs is $98,306.25.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 7th day of November, 2024.

fl } “a 4 : “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af CA MAGIA AYN GC VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge Copies to: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch